Does the Church place the unborn at a higher value of protection than the born? (EDITED TITLE)

[catharina]

The profound ignorance appears to be yours, with regard to the requirements of sin. No one is questioning the grave matter of abortion. But grave matter is only one element of grave sin, and not to understand this is to continue to spread grave error.

Right. Not you.
I am stating established Church Teaching.
You cannot argue with that fact.

But he has put life in our hands and does not want us to prematurely end the life of a mother at the same time that we’re dooming the life of a growing fetus to certain death & a guaranteed mother-less existence. Provide any/all Church sources that support this error of yours. Such do not exist.

But luckily, you have zero authority to judge or condemn ryecroft – not just due to your lack of ecclesiastical authority, but due to your lack of credibility in your failure to understand basic Catholic moral theology. **Through Baptism, I have an absolute authority to quote Church Teaching. You have the same absolute authority to do so - yet you are denying Church Teaching regarding abortion. **

“Virulent disrespect?” It appears that only one poster on this thread demonstrates this. It certainly isn’t ryecroft, who respected trained theologians enough to consult them on the matter.

**
Anyone who denies God is the only Author of life is expressing virulent disrespect. It is only the Author of life who has the authority to end life not you or any theologian or mommy or daddy or government. **

 

[Victorious]

The baby was going to die anyway, if she continued the pregnancy and died herself.

Law school hypothetical: if a man falls off the roof of a building, and you shoot him dead as he rushes past your window, are you guilty of murder? The answer is yes. That the man was seconds away from an unpreventable death anyway is not a defense: it was your intervening act of violence that actually caused the death, not the fall from the roof. I do not know the particulars of the case in question here, so I am not addressing it. I do mean to address the idea that the immanent death of the person being killed is somehow a defense to killing. This same rationale is used to justify the killing of the elderly and the terminally ill, and it’s wrong.

Now while the unborn baby is innocent, that is totally irrelevant to the real and physical danger that is facing the Mother.

If our physical lives are in real danger from another person whether it be with a gun, knife or the above circumstance then tell me why it is okay to use deadly force with the first 2 scenarios (gun and knife) and not with the above circumstance? The guilt or innocence of the others is irrelevant to the physical dangers. Furthermore let me ask this: If a known serial killer came to your house and on your house you had an apple tree and the killer picked an apple and was leaving your house, would it be lawful for you to kill him/her?

The innocence of the baby is very relevant to whether self-defense applies. Like I said in my earlier post above, in order to be justified in using deadly force against a person, that person must first aggress against you in a deadly manner. Hence, if your next-door neighbor is just sitting on his porch and minding his own business, you can’t go over and beat the tar out of him and call it self-defense. (In those circumstances, you couldn’t even get a judge to instruct a jury on the theory of self-defense, because it wouldn’t apply.)

Similarly, self-defense cannot apply against a baby, because a baby is incapable of being an aggressor. The baby does not commit an act of aggression merely by existing. If merely to exist constituted aggression, triggering the right of self-defense, then that’s a license for anybody to kill anybody.

Which, come to think of it, is about where we’re headed in this society.

 

[ryecroft]

I’ll answer it again.
Only God can rightfully begin/end a life.

Only God has that authority.
God is the Author of life.
That is Church Teaching.
It is a matter of faith and morals.
It is not a matter of free choice for anyone.

If you have an argument or revulsion regarding this teaching, take it up with God.
The teaching is absolutely consistent within Church history.
We are not allowed to kill - especially the most innocent among us.

I mention punishment as a way to POINT OUT that indeed the Church most certainly does recognize the killing of the unborn as a particularly horrific sin - therefore it applies excommunication. Again, your argument seems to be with God’s law, not with me.

You quote teaching but you still don’t say why it’s better to have two deaths than to have one person live - especially when there was no chance of the fetus at 15 weeks 5-7 days living outside of me. The doctor did say that within 10 minutes the fetus would have been dead anyway - but then I would have been too. I wish it would have been possible for the fetus to live when they had to go in and stop the bleeding - it seems that it would have been more acceptable to you to have had me wait out the time until the fetus died but then I would have been dead too - but one thing was made clear - regardless the fetus wouldn’t make it - I almost didn’t - and there was absolutely no good that would come from the death of both myself and the fetus. You say there was no free choice - you’re right - had the doctors not done what they did than it would have been suiscide for me. I don’t have an argument with God as I said, I’ve already talked to two priests about it and been told in both cases that I didn’t do anything wrong. But apparently you believe you know better than two priests. You better pray that God isn’t as black and white with judgement as you are - because not only do I expect that you would be in a heap more trouble than you expect but so would everyone else. I’m not worried about what God will say on judgement day regarding this - I did the best I could- at the beginning I was told it was likely to cause renal failure if I continued - the preeclampsia and hemmoraging almost cost me my life and my reproductive organs.

I’ve had a lot of support from people on here e-mailing me and I appreciate it - I think I’ll take your reccomendations and just ignore this poster and I reccomend that you guys do the same. If anyone else would like to actually give a conclusive answer as to why it would be better for two to die the mother and the fetus - rather than to have one live, I’d appreciate it.

 

[catharina]

Law school hypothetical: if a man falls off the roof of a building, and you shoot him dead as he rushes past your window, are you guilty of murder? The answer is yes. That the man was seconds away from an unpreventable death anyway is not a defense: it was your intervening act of violence that actually caused the death, not the fall from the roof. I do not know the particulars of the case in question here, so I am not addressing it. I do mean to address the idea that the immanent death of the person being killed is somehow a defense to killing. This same rationale is used to justify the killing of the elderly and the terminally ill, and it’s wrong.

The innocence of the baby is very relevant to whether self-defense applies. Like I said in my earlier post above, in order to be justified in using deadly force against a person, that person must first aggress against you in a deadly manner. Hence, if your next-door neighbor is just sitting on his porch and minding his own business, you can’t go over and beat the tar out of him and call it self-defense. (In those circumstances, you couldn’t even get a judge to instruct a jury on the theory of self-defense, because it wouldn’t apply.)

Similarly, self-defense cannot apply against a baby, because a baby is incapable of being an aggressor. The baby does not commit an act of aggression merely by existing. If merely to exist constituted aggression, triggering the right of self-defense, then that’s a license for anybody to kill anybody.
Precisely.

Which, come to think of it, is about where we’re headed in this society.

**
It sounds as if some people have already arrived at that “new” point of view.
By the way - thanks for your great post.**

 

[catharina]

You quote teaching but you still don’t say why it’s better to have two deaths than to have one person live - especially when there was no chance of the fetus at 15 weeks 5-7 days living outside of me. The doctor did say that within 10 minutes the fetus would have been dead anyway - but then I would have been too. I wish it would have been possible for the fetus to live when they had to go in and stop the bleeding - it seems that it would have been more acceptable to you to have had me wait out the time until the fetus died but then I would have been dead too - but one thing was made clear - regardless the fetus wouldn’t make it - I almost didn’t - and there was absolutely no good that would come from the death of both myself and the fetus. You say there was no free choice - you’re right - had the doctors not done what they did than it would have been suiscide for me. I don’t have an argument with God as I said, I’ve already talked to two priests about it and been told in both cases that I didn’t do anything wrong. But apparently you believe you know better than two priests. You better pray that God isn’t as black and white with judgement as you are - because not only do I expect that you would be in a heap more trouble than you expect but so would everyone else. I’m not worried about what God will say on judgement day regarding this - I did the best I could- at the beginning I was told it was likely to cause renal failure if I continued - the preeclampsia and hemmoraging almost cost me my life and my reproductive organs.

I’ve had a lot of support from people on here e-mailing me and I appreciate it - I think I’ll take your reccomendations and just ignore this poster and I reccomend that you guys do the same. If anyone else would like to actually give a conclusive answer as to why it would be better for two to die the mother and the fetus - rather than to have one live, I’d appreciate it.

The Church is inspired in its teaching by the Holy Spirit.
In and of itself, the teaching proclaims the will of God.
If you and two priests insist that abortion is NOT wrong, you and two priests are in error.

Bye now - with prayers for you and those priests.

 

[ryecroft]

The Church is inspired in its teaching by the Holy Spirit.
In and of itself, the teaching proclaims the will of God.
If you and two priests insist that abortion is NOT wrong, you and two priests are in error.

Bye now - with prayers for you and those priests.

I’m not saying that abortion is always right - I’m saying there are cases where both the fetus and the mother will die and in that case, I see no reason why one shouldn’t live - I also see no good coming of the two deaths.
God Bless

 

[catharina]

I’m not saying that abortion is always right - I’m saying there are cases where both the fetus and the mother will die and in that case, I see no reason why one shouldn’t live - I also see no good coming of the two deaths.
God Bless

In saying that in such cases, you see things differently - you are in disagreement with God’s teaching given to us in the Church. Who ever said that we must have REASONS to be faithful to the will of God? We have FAITH .

 

[TeresaAnn]

In this thread it has been said that the church does not expect a mother to give up her life to try to save the life of an unborn child.

It has also been said that the church does expect a mother to give up her life in hopes of saving her unborn child, even if the child has no chance of living outside the dead mother.

Just to clear this up for me… can someone please provide some references?

Thanks

 

[limerick]

**
Anyone who denies God is the only Author of life is expressing virulent disrespect. It is only the Author of life who has the authority to end life not you or any theologian or mommy or daddy or government. **

**Anyone has the authority to end life. Don’t you read the papers or watch the news?

These may be poor choices, but they exist regardless of their characteristics.

I have a relationship with God. I’ve never seen Him, but I have seen His work and heard his voice in my heart. He sounds nothing like you.

Limerick**

 

[catharina]

**Anyone has the authority to end life. Don’t you read the papers or watch the news?

These may be poor choices, but they exist regardless of their characteristics.

I have a relationship with God. I’ve never seen Him, but I have seen His work and heard his voice in my heart. He sounds nothing like you.

Limerick**

Allow me to comment on your fuzzy thinking.
(Yes- it’s likely that God would not do so.)

Do some take upon themselves the authority to kill? Yes.
Do they have a right to take on that authority? NO.

 

[catharina]

In this thread it has been said that the church does not expect a mother to give up her life to try to save the life of an unborn child.

It has also been said that the church does expect a mother to give up her life in hopes of saving her unborn child, even if the child has no chance of living outside the dead mother.

Just to clear this up for me… can someone please provide some references?

Thanks

"Feb 7, 2007
CANON LAW AND ABORTION

Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication.

Canon Law and Church Teaching

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

The phrase “latae sententiae” literally means a ‘broad sentence’ or ‘wide judgment,’ in other words, a sentence or judgment which is applied widely. In this context, it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the particular judgment of a case by competent authority.

Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offences which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)

Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 57: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

Obtaining an Abortion

Any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly obtains a procured abortion commits a mortal sin and is also automatically excommunicated, under canon 1398.

Under the laws of secular society, if one person commits a crime, then anyone who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for that person to commit that crime is called an accessory to that crime and is also subject to the penalties of law. Similarly, any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for any woman to procure an abortion also commits a mortal sin and also incurs the same sentence of excommunication.

Any Catholic who substantially assists another in the deliberate sin of abortion is also guilty of serious sin and also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Believing in Abortion

Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral commits the sin of heresy. The sin of heresy also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Unfortunately, some Catholics obstinately deny that abortion is always immoral, and some Catholics claim that abortion can, at times, be a morally-acceptable choice, and some Catholics claim that a person can, in good conscience, choose abortion. Under the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, canons 751 and 1364, all such Catholics are automatically excommunicated for the sin of heresy.

This sentence of latae sententiae excommunication applies to any Catholic who denies that abortion is gravely immoral, regardless of whether they keep this denial hidden or publicly reveal it.

Promoting Abortion

Those Catholics who publicly announce their denial that abortion is always gravely immoral, or who publicly promote abortion, or who publicly argue in favor of legalized abortion, also commit a mortal sin and also incur a sentence of automatic excommunication.

This sentence of excommunication applies to Catholics who are politicians, as well as to those Catholics who are political commentators, or public speakers, or who write or otherwise publicly communicate their erroneous view that abortion can be morally-acceptable or that abortion should be legal. This sentence of excommunication also certainly applies to those Catholics who claim to be theologians or Biblical scholars, but who believe or teach that abortion is not always gravely immoral."

from website Mysterium Fideii

 

[catharina]

In this thread it has been said that the church does not expect a mother to give up her life to try to save the life of an unborn child.

It has also been said that the church does expect a mother to give up her life in hopes of saving her unborn child, even if the child has no chance of living outside the dead mother.

Just to clear this up for me… can someone please provide some references?

Thanks

Also, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

 

[Victorious]

Sometimes, we are presented with a choice between saving our skin and saving our soul. Which one are we obliged to save?

St. Thomas More – who himself had to make that choice, and chose wisely – has some timely reminders for us about where our duties lie, and the true difficulty of being a Christian:

And as much comfort as we may think Christ called us to, the laws that have been made by His Church are not half as much trouble or difficult to keep as are His own – the ones that He Himself imposes in the Gospel – even if we set aside the [evangelical] counsels. It is, I feel, harder not to swear at all than not to swear falsely; to forbear every angry word than not to kill; to watch and pray continually than to do so on a few designated days.

And then what an anxiety and solicitude there is with the forbearing of every idle word! What a severe threat, from an earthly point of view, for a small matter! Almost never was such a distressing thing said to the Jews by Moses as is said to us by Christ in that statement alone, where he says that on Judgment Day we shall give an account of every idle word. And then what do you say about the forbidding of divorce, and the revoking of liberty to have several wives, where they had the liberty to wed as they pleased if they took a fancy to any that they came across in the war?...

**Also, what comfort do you call this, that we are obliged – under pain of perpetual damnation – to suffer whatever kind of affliction and shameful death, whatever kind of martyrdom, for the profession of our faith?** Do you believe that these ease-giving words of His easy yoke and light burden were not spoken as much to His Apostles as to you? And yet what ease did He call them to? Did He not call them to watching, fasting, praying, preaching, traveling, hunger, thirst, cold and heat, beatings, scourgings, imprisonment, painful and shameful death?

The easiness of His yoke does not consist in bodily ease, nor does the lightness of His burden consist in the slackening of any bodily pain (unless we are so oblivious that whereas He Himself did not gain Heaven without pain, we expect to get there with play), but it consists in the sweetness of hope, whereby we experience in our pain a pleasant taste of Heaven. This is…not any delivering from the laws of the Church (or from any good civil laws, either) into a sorry liberty of slothful rest. For that would be not an easy yoke, but a pulling of the head out of the yoke. And it would be not a light burden, but all the burden removed, contrary to the words of both Saint Paul and Saint Peter…[who] do command of us obedience to our superiors and rulers, of the one kind and the other, in things not forbidden by God, even if the things are hard and distressing.

From Dialogue Concerning Heresies

 

[catharina]

Sometimes, we are presented with a choice between saving our skin and saving our soul. Which one are we obliged to save?

St. Thomas More – who himself had to make that choice, and chose wisely – has some timely reminders for us about where our duties lie, and the true difficulty of being a Christian:

From Dialogue Concerning Heresies

St. Thomas More,
Holy Martyr and
the patron of lawyers,
pray for us!

 

[catharina]

From primary source, the Vatican, Code of Canon Law:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM

Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

 

[ryecroft]

In saying that in such cases, you see things differently - you are in disagreement with God’s teaching given to us in the Church. Who ever said that we must have REASONS to be faithful to the will of God? We have FAITH .

I have faith in God - faith that He gave myself, my family and my doctors enough intelligence to know that no good comes from having myself die a well as the fetus. I am faithful to God - I had faith enough to continue with a pregnancy I was told would likely kill me if I didn’t end it - I went on for nearly 4 months and then through hospitalization trying to save both - I thank God I had doctors that allowed me to try to continue the pregnancy and I’m glad I had faith enough that God would show them how to best help myself and the pregnancy - it was unfortunate that both of us could not have lived and I believe that by the Grace of God and intelligence of my doctors I did live. Absolutely no good comes from two deaths when one can live.

 

[diggerdomer]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

Nope

 

[catharina]

I have faith in God - faith that He gave myself, my family and my doctors enough intelligence to know that no good comes from having myself die a well as the fetus. I am faithful to God - I had faith enough to continue with a pregnancy I was told would likely kill me if I didn’t end it - I went on for nearly 4 months and then through hospitalization trying to save both - I thank God I had doctors that allowed me to try to continue the pregnancy and I’m glad I had faith enough that God would show them how to best help myself and the pregnancy - it was unfortunate that both of us could not have lived and I believe that by the Grace of God and intelligence of my doctors I did live. Absolutely no good comes from two deaths when one can live.

**That determination is for God alone.
You’ve only stated your own opinion and your own action.

We are called to a higher purpose according to God’s will, not our own.
This is the teaching of the Church, of the Catholic faith.

I have not imagined or invented this Church teaching. I have only quoted it - at length.**

 

[catharina]

Nope

Agreed - all life is sacred.

Yet unborn life is at far greater risk, having absolutely no means to defend itself.
The Church recognizes the greater risk and prescribes greater punishment for the destruction of such life.

 

[ryecroft]

**That determination is for God alone.
You’ve only stated your own opinion and your own action.

QUOTE]

Not an opinion - a fact. No good comes from the death of a mother and her child when one can be saved. If it had been that the fetus was old enough to live and its existence killed me -that is to say, I died allowing them to save the fetus then you wouldn’t have a problem - this situation was just the reverse. The fetus was causing greater hemmoraging as well as other problems-it couldn’t survive outside of me - if it hadn’t been removed, it would have killed me.**